A new week and a new open thread for you. Just what is bothering you about the BBC today?
OPEN THREAD…
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 Dec 19, 06:36
Midweek 18th December 2024
Today watch I thought I’d have an early dip into today . It’s funny when you know more background than… - tomo Dec 19, 06:21
Midweek 18th December 2024
Dimwit MP https://x.com/josephpowell/status/1869051927734194241 and… Labour’s new Corruption Minister - JohnC Dec 19, 05:51
Midweek 18th December 2024
Syria not a threat to world, rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa tells BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c05p9g2nqmeo Jesus H Christ, this is another absolutely… - atlas_shrugged Dec 19, 05:18
Midweek 18th December 2024
So they found him a razor to chop his beard off then. - Zephir Dec 19, 03:04
Midweek 18th December 2024
The liars caught out over and over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZX3XFzmTww - BRISSLES Dec 19, 00:58
Midweek 18th December 2024
Perhaps they’re looking to give Chopper (Ive done this, Ive done that ..) Hopeless his own show – he infiltrates… - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:25
Midweek 18th December 2024
GBnews new lineup statement doesn’t mention Dolan https://www.gbnews.com/shows/gb-news-makes-2025-programming-announcement - StewGreen Dec 19, 00:24
Midweek 18th December 2024
Foreign funded Client Earth have been using lawfare trickery to usurp democracy on UK enviro policy, for years They are… - wwfc Dec 18, 23:08
Midweek 18th December 2024
I wonder why this is happening more and more now let me think !! His 61-year-old father collapsed and died… - wwfc Dec 18, 22:50
Midweek 18th December 2024
Well looks like this site will not be around much longer happy heart attack and you paid for it yourself…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Here’s a proposal…
How about a Beeboid Arse of the Week competition?
So for example, this week I might suggest David “Poshboy” Shukman, the English graduate who brilliantly informed us of the difference between “climate” and “weather” (discussed below)?
Now I know that there is so much competition we will be spoiled for choice. BUt as a starter I would suggest the elephantine John Simpson, whose egotism is simply unmatched and who, in any report, can show how he played a critical, brave and definitive role in the events he is describing. Thus we have Fatty Simpson liberating Iraq, or Fatty Simpson ending the reign oif the Shah, or Fatty Simpson – you get it.
Takers?
Can I suggest that like Top Gear we have ‘cock’ of the week. Perhaps this could be the award!
http://www.dragon-gate.com/Images/cpics/RS002_c.jpg
magic … I like your idea!
But surely Marge Simpson should get a Lifetime Arschievement Award for his unstinting services to total arsery?
BBC has buried this:
‘Mail’:
“Islam divides us, say majority of Britons”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242048/Almost-half-Britons-oppose-mosque-built-area-finds-study.html
Plenty of Ed Balls and Nick Clegg on Radios 4 and 5 this morning. Labour and Liberal men on The Daily Politics this morning. Why no Conservatives? If I didn’t know better I might suspect bias.
Cameron was supposed to be on Radio 5 but I didn’t hear it.
Very soft interviews of both Clegg and Balls by James Naughtie.
Why do these jackasses keep prattling on about Senator Reid and his remarks concerning Obama? The president accepted the man’s apology, and Americans have finished with it. It seems anything awkward or just simply “bad” about the Grand Old Republic, and our state propandist-in-chief loves to wade in!
I don’t think the Americans have finished with it. It’s on a Fox News Radio phone-in right now.
Incidentally I got myself a Pico Revo Radiostation WiFi radio at Christmas so now I’ll listen to bBC even less. The radio is portable, battery operated, tunes in to your WiFi point and thus all internet radio is at your fingertips (even in the bath!). There’s even a Goon Show station.
david j… – I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Lee Rodgers @ KSFO most days on the interweb.
But that radio sounds spiffy, How much and from where? If you know!
Cheers
Jack here it is – http://audioaffair.co.uk/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=2510&md=9c24b046de11091d57603b28639b217f
I got it from Hughes Electrical for £150. It comes with a really nifty remocon.
You can set up your stations on your computer and then access them from the radio. The website is http://www.wifiradio-frontier.com/setupapp/fs/asp/AuthLogin/SignIn.asp?sLogoutType=OUTCOMPLETE&lngy=&sAuthErr=sp1&sAuth=
Now I must search for KSFO!
I too have a Revo – the iBlik WiFi. Wonderful piece of kit.
We most certainly haven’t finished with it. But here’s
Mark Mardell to defend the racist statement by Harry Reid, and betray his own anti-American bias as usual.
Was the Senate leader being racist?
Mardell actually has the correct answer right in front of him, a post by far-Left blogger “Field Negro“. Reid’s comment about the “Negro dialect” was a racist statement, and the media is giving him a pass because he’s a Democrat, and The Obamessiah has to let him off the hook for the sake of getting ObamaCare passed. But you won’t get any actual analysis about the big picture from Mardell or the BBC.
Mardell, following in lock-step with his predecessor Justin Webb’s devotion to certain Washington Post opinions, tries to play it off as unfortunate because it’s “a term from the past”, but not actually racist. He also tries to pretend that it’s really a “regional” thing Reid is talking about, and not cultural. How disingenuous can you get?
Of course, this is really a false premise he’s using to defend his beloved Obamessiah against the criticism that He could adopt a “Negro dialect” when it suited Him. The false premise that “Negro” means “regional” having been established, Mardell can then allow that all politicians do that, even Tony Blair, so Reid’s criticism is unfair. His biased desire to defend The Obamessiah clouds his judgment and sends him on this unnecessary and dishonest side-track to defend Him rather than staying on the subject.
After all this, Mardell hits upon what he sees as the real truth here: Harry Reid isn’t the racist: the rest of us are. Naturally.
According to this genius, it’s not that Harry Reid and the Dem leadership are racists who saw only skin color when judging a man’s qualifications for being a Presidential candidate – it’s the rest of us who are so racist that we’d only vote for a light-skinned dude. And they were just being shrewd political operators. Can’t blame them for that, right? If The Obamessiah’s skin was darker, He wouldn’t have won the elction? Nonsense. Which black politicians with darker skin got passed over at the time? There weren’t any.
Before the election, Beeboids were fretting that we in the US were too racist to elect a black man. Now that we have, apparently we’re still racist because we would elect only a light-skinned one. Once again Mark Mardell betrays his anti-American bias, as well as his ignorance. Plenty of nasty white Republicans would have been happy to have either Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice as President, and they both have darker skin than Barack Obama.
Lefty Kirsty Young gets to do a Marr type history season on BBC2, starting tonight. Her look at marriage since 1945 obviously poses too big a temptation not to seek to ridicule Thatcher as Mrs Chumney Warner, the BBC’s Radio Times describes it ” some hilariously sexist adverts and a revealing glimpse of the young Margaret Thatcher and family”
The license fee….Just renewed mine today. 1, why should we have to pay this tax in the first place and 2, why do the beeb demand it “up front”?
Other TV stations charge monthly (and offer better quality programming) so why not the beeb?
Plus, while I’m venting, Subscription TV (Sky, Virgin etc) seem much better value when you consider the number of channels you get for your money. With them, if you don’t like it, don’t pay and don’t watch. Rupert M isn’t going to come round you house demanding money if you switch off Sky.
Heck, why can’t the bbc just advertise and scrap the fee…could it be because their programming is so left wing and crappy that funding for things like their decorating budget would disappear overnight?
feel better now.
sky invested billions in the technology, the BBC invest in Cocaine.
Advertising doesn’t have to mean programs having commercial breaks. The english channels in Hong Kong used to have sponsored programs where the sponsor had an advert before the program and another after the program had finished.
If the BBC could be purged of it’s LibLeft cocain addicted Islingtonite lentil munchers then it might be worth reforming otherwise it should be broken up, as much as I would miss “The Sky at Night”, “Something Understood” and the “Moral Maze”.
pacific — talking Sky At Night (one of the few BBC self-generated shows I enjoy), have you a Sky subscription?
They have about a 1000 channels. Some of them seem to be put together by one man and his dog.
Patrick Moore could start the SKY AT NIGHT channel … all SAN all the time.
Seriously, those Beeboidhead fanatics who want to force the rest us to pay for their fanaticism have a mindset locked into 1955 and the Politburo
It’s like they don’t even know about the most revolutionary changes to the media since Gutenberg. (And I don’t mean Steve)
The Sky at night is an interesting programme. The BBC have tolerated the politically incorrect non dumbed down show for 50 years. Show done by mostly white males (yuk) and not a lesbian or Muslim in sight.
The BBC are probably waiting for Moore to kick the bucket so they can do to it what they did to Country File, turn it into a townie politically correct climate change love fest.
Maybe Sandy Tostig will take over from Patrick Moore or Stephen Fry. Don’t forget in the eyes of the BBC you don’t have to be an expert in science to be employed in a scientific programme. And just think of all the “comedy” they could bring to astronomy – it would be worth the licence fee (wouldn’t it?)
I haven’t got a Sky subscription because I was worried about the kids being distracted from their schoolwork by the Disney Channel.
But if Patrick Moore had a slot on Sky I would reconsider.
Agree that the infestation of the libleft at the BBC has gotten out of control – and I’m not sure that Cameron could fix it. Maybe scrapping the licence fee is the simplest solution, and then let the competitors pick over the bones.
I also enjoy Sky at Night even though I have no real interest in that subject. It has to be the last politically incorrect show on the Beeb in that guests and commentators are invited onto the show because of what they know and not because they represent some minority group or whatever. I fear the Beeb would dearly like to be rid of it but dare not so do the next best thing which is to hide it away on the schedules late at night and cancel it at any opportunity.
The BBC currently has advertisements between programmes. They may be advertisements for BBC programmes but they often last a good two minutes or more. Why not use that time for paid advertisements and cut or eliminate the licence fee. I used to be a huge supporter of the BBC and the lack of advertising breaks was one reason. The relentless political, social and ecological bias in association with the unceasing self-advertising has changed my mind.
The BBC have the most incredible business model. They make 100% taxpayer subsidized programmes which they sell all over the world for profit, for example as BBC Prime. Outside the UK they show paid advertisements and the World Service is also partially subsidized, not least by the C.F.O. i.e. the British Taxpayer.
It is a wonder that other networks don’t protest against such unfair competition, for example, by backing candidates who pledge to abolish it.
The BBC really do need to do something about their complaints department.
I Emailed them about the ‘Obama is going to save us all’ nonsense in the first of the Dr Who Crimbo two parter. They got what I complained about wrong, told me I was wrong to think that way, and then ‘I realise you may continue to disagree and to this end, I can assure you that your complaint has been registered on our audience log’, joy.
I wonder what Watchdog would make of the service.
Anybody know what happend in Wootton Bassett yesterday? Nothing on BBC or ITN. I have heard rumours that Choudary tried to march.
Fraser Nelson thinks Grant Mitchell did a better job for Sky than Bowen & co ever manage for the BBC
http://www.spectator.co.uk/cappuccinoculture/5697768/both-sides-of-the-divide.thtml
Richard Bacon interviews David Cameron on his first Radio5 afternoon slot
First half-hour: budget cuts, broken society, benefits system.
Next 15: women Tory MPs, Tories same as New Labour, Doctor Who/David Tennant.
Final 15: immigration control, Afghanistan support, Chilcot Inquiry/Iraq war, Labour’s personal attacks, do you know any poor people, do you want another baby, J-Ross, should BBC fear Tories.
No discussion of the European Union or Global Warming. This is an example of how the BBC will limit the public debate over the GE period to safe areas where 1. the Conservatives cannot be distinguished from Labour and 2. neither the Conservatives or Labour can be properly attacked – on the two giant issues the country are most interested in because the gigantic sums involved impacts everything else that could be discussed.
BBC news website headlines have become longer in recent weeks; and such are the BBC’s politically correct skills that it knows how to leave out key words, as here:
” 5 ” [Muslim] ” men guilty of threats at Luton homecoming parade”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8452616.stm
Yes, I know the word ‘Muslim’ is used in the opening text; but the word is avoided in the headline, when a more accurate headline would be:
‘5 Muslim men guilty of threats at army parade in Luton’.
Of course, the BBC does not see any irony in that its report mentions Voltaire being cited in defence of one of the Muslims.
Voltaire in ‘modern’ France:
[ Opening Extract]-
“In France, Muslim students refuse to study World War II, the Resistance, and the murder of Europe’s Jews. They disrupt classes, and refuse to read, those writers — Voltaire among them — whom they think, or have been told to think, were ‘anti-Muslim.’ Their refusal to follow the syllabus of the Ministry of Education disrupts not only their own education, but that of others in the class or in the school. I have received from teachers in the French system horror stories, one after the other, of how even in a small town, far from the banlieues of Paris, Marseilles, Lyons, a single Muslim family can, with its six or twelve children in a small local school, utterly disrupt things. ”
(Hugh Fitzgerald)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/292
Don’t know if anyone has posted this here, but I noticed Radio 4 “Any Questions” was held in a Mosque last week.
Can’t remember the last time it was held in a Church, but I assume, in the interest of balance, this week’s will be. Then next week a Synagoge etc. etc.
Just seems strange that the BBC should favour such a tiny minority religion in the UK, or am I missing something ?
Not bias, surely ?
It’s been mentioned.
And on the occasion of the BBC visit, there were lots of vote-currying comments about Islam being a ‘religion of peace’, and none of the commenters meant it in the following sense of ‘religion of peace’:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I am so looking forward to next June 22, when Any Questions will be coming live from Stonehenge to honour Britain’s pagan “community.”
The audience will comprise wiccans, witches, warlocks, Druids, goats, devil worshippers, elves, gnomes, trolls, et al.
All starkers, (and bonkers) of course.
Paganism — the Religion of Peace… and turnig you into a toad.
And the great druid himself “The Archbishop”
I suspect we’ll find that Islam gets rather more coverage on the BBC than its 3.3% of the population would justify. Judaism gets about the 0.4% it represents. Not that I’m a British Jew but it seems the official representatives of the community are happy with this.
The groups that are screwed are the Hindus (1.4%) and Sikhs (0.4%). I wonder why there are no protests from those groups.
I suspect that if the BBC wasn’t forced to deliver religious programming if it wouldn’t take the post modern approach that all religions are equally true and give equal time to everybody in a vastly reduced output.
So those young men who decided to throw abuse at the British army Soldiers given the freedom of the city of Luton have been found guilty in a court of law of making threats and such.
Yet for some strange reason the bBC goes to a lot of effort in which to present a different version of why these brave young men decided to express themselves.
Wow, highlighted like that it’s simply stunning!
Well spotted Pounce!
Brilliant anti BBC rant from The Tap blog.
It cheered me up anyway.
Astonishing bias on Newsnight.
Jeremy Paxman said Demos was an independent thinktank… from Wiki:
“Demos was founded in 1993 by former Marxism Today editor Martin Jacques, and Geoff Mulgan, who… went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997″
Never have I seen such a quissling Paxman lapping up the words of Prescott on how wonderful Labour had been over the past 12 years. No attempt at a comeback regarding the £800bn public debt or the personal promise of affordable housing for all. Prescott was so deliriously happy I wondered if Paxo hadn’t crawled under the table and started orally pleasuring two jags.
To them Demos is independent. The left is normality by definition. It is only counter revolutionary outfits that need to have their political affiliations mentioned. New labour is normal. Demos is normal. The BBC is normal. And so on. SO debate is merely a difference of opinion amongst friends.
The rest of us are deviants.
Is anyone in any doubt now as to what vindictive bastards THEY are?.
John Prescott nobs his secretary-“Just John being John”
Robin Kook dumps his wife at the airport-barely a ripple.
mandleson-demonstrably bent in every sense of the word -becomes lord pantomime dame and the second most powerful man in the country.
iris Robinson, one of those evil christians, makes a derogatory remark about homosexuals and the attack dogs are let loose.The BBC set out to destroy not just her, but her husband (a vile protestant) as well.
I don’t condone Iris Robinsons hypocracy, or that of any other politician, but the difference in treatment, and the sheer spite and viciousness of the attack on the Robinsons leaves me gasping.
She attacked gayers, the BBC don’t like that, unless you’re a towel head then the BBC doesn’t mind.
Getting up my nose this morning: BBC presuming to tell me my kids’ packed lunches are unhealthy.
From an organization where cocaine abuse is rife!
My message to BBC: sod off and keep your state-funded noses out of things that do not concern you.
I heard this as well. It was either the lead item or the 2nd item on the Today at 6am. A total non-news items from some little busy body banstabating furiously. I must admit I turned off so didn’t listen who had produced this “report” presumably a quango or fake charity.
It will be interesting to see where this one goes. Are we seeing the start of some larger campaign of state interference in our lives or was it simply the Beeb trying to find a story which didn’t involve putting Gordon “not mad at all” Brown in a bad light ?
BBC: “Hello Anjem.”
“What is your reaction to that ban?”
Evan Davis BBC ‘Today’ this morning, introducing this friendly interview with Choudary, leader of the now proscribed ‘Islam4UK’ (scroll down to 8:48 am here 🙂
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8453000/8453388.stm
Of course, the BBC does not raise the broader issues of the Islamic
jihad threat in the UK, which continues. There is no reference to the
need to ban ‘Hizb ut Tahrir’, which ex-PM Blair promised to do 5
years ago (and to their credit, the Tories do today).
There is no BBC understanding of this:
“‘Londonistan’ is still the weakest link”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8453000/8453388.stm
I think we know what contrasting tone the BBC will adopt towards
opponent of Islam, Dutch MP Geert Wilders, when he goes on trial
next week.
AP: Miep Gies, the last survivor among Anne Frank’s protectors and the woman who preserved the diary that endures as a testament to the human spirit in the face of unfathomable evil, died Monday night, the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam said. She was 100.
Has there been any mention of the sad passing of this exceptional human being during the usual BBC labour flakery this morning.
I truly hope so.
Yes she got a mention on Today this morning while my wife was listening. Well down the running order of stories and after the school lunch non-story mentioned earlier in this thread.
Actually yes. Anne Frank diary guardian Miep Gies dies aged 100 The BBC is quite OK with Jews as victims of the Fascists. It’s those like Israel and the ‘Jewish Lobby’ who fight the Fascists it doesn’t like.
There is a curious exchange, at the end.
She believes that she once came across Anne writing the diary.
“It was a very uncomfortable situation,” she says.
I tried to decide what to do. Should I walk away or go to her? At that moment she glanced at me, with a look that I’ll never forget.
“This wasn’t the Anne I knew, that friendly, charming child. She looked at me with anger, rage. Then Anne stood up, slammed her diary shut and glared at me with great condescension. ‘Yes,’ she said, ‘I’m writing about you, too.’
“I didn’t know what to say. The only thing I could manage was: ‘That ought to be interesting.'”
What could have led Anne to act that way? PMS? Teenage tantrum? Totally powerless child trying to protect the only private thing she had?
Was the BBC trying, after all, to dent the icon?
Compare and contrast:-
1.) ‘Mail’ report:
“Guilty? It’s a badge of honour say Muslim hate mob (and because we’re on benefits, the state will pay our costs)”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242335/Muslims-called-British-soldiers-rapists-cowards-scum-exercising-freedom-speech-court-hears.html#ixzz0cOR7urMj
2.) BBC report:
“5 men guilty of threats at Luton homecoming parade”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8452616.stm
DV- I see from the Wall St Journal that the Robinsons are relieving the GB taxpayers of nearly 600.000. AS the writer points out nearly as much as the BBC’s DG. However there does seem to be a culture of troughing in NI. About time it was sorted out or us English might start to wonder why should we bother keeping NI in existence. What do you think?
What can you do about troughing in England, though? You can’t get rid of it. Oh, wait… 😉
I see the Daily Politics today is from NI. I wonder if Peter Robinson was Sinn Fein/IRA, the BBC would give the same coverage. The knives are certainly out, even though there has been no enquiry into the facts yet.
Dave S 11:20
And don’t forget we pay for Sinn Fein MPs to be at Westminster. Surely a scandal for the BBC to pusue ?
Agreed but the whole lot of them on all sides seem an unlovely bunch.
More BBC propagated Islam tonight, and beyond:
1.) “Muslim Driving School: Driving with the Veil” -BBC 2 TV 10 pm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8449262.stm
-immediately followed , at 10:30 pm tonight –
2.)BBC 2 TV ‘Newsnight’ on Guantanamo, not forgetting:
3.) BBC Radio 5, 14 Jan, 10 pm:
“Guantanamo Reunited”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8452937.stm
ALLAH AKHBAR!! INFIDELS
Re-Driving licence photo requirement by Government, apparently for non-Muslims only, in Labour’s apartheid society:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_078281
How much of a “requirement” is it if the specifications and “requirements” for a photo can be overturned so readily?
I mean if they can be ignored for Muslims, why can’t they be ignored for everyone?
Or if they really are essential requirements, surely they can’t be ignored for Muslims, just like that?
It doesn’t add up. Either you had robust requirements for good reason or (if requirements can be brushed aside so easily) the reason was not that important anyway.
Iraq Inquiry.
Both Sky News, and BBC 24 are covering this extensively live.
Ironically, one of the reasons why the Sky News comments and criticisms of the Blair Labour government seem to be more incisive on Sky News is that they have ex-BBC key reporter of that time, Andrew Gilligan (who BBC sacked), as commenter for Sky now.
When will BBC give Alastair Campbell a new series?
Dave S 12:21
But at least the Unionist MPs turn up at Westminster for their money, well now and again.
nyone notice the complete absence of reporting by the BBC of the huge race riots (related to Ilegal immigration) and subsequent military intervention in Italy?
BBC News website is leading its “World” stories with the headline that the Iranian government is accusing the USA and Israel of being behind a bombing that killed an Iranian academic.
What a difference a headline makes
Israel and US behind Tehran blast – Iranian state media
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8453401.stm
Uni Professor Killed In Tehran Bomb Blast
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-Blast-University-Professor-Massoud-Ali-Mohammadi-Killed-In-Remote-Controlled-Bomb-In-Tehran/Article/201001215519808?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15519808_Iran_Blast%3A_University_Professor_Massoud_Ali_Mohammadi_Killed_In_Remote_Controlled_Bomb_In_Tehran
The trend by ‘certain media’ to headline formats of the ‘[What would suit us (whether true, credible, inflammatory or not)]… pause… according to [any old ‘source’ that they can hide behind and point to] variety, followed by ‘clarification’ behind a link or buried in copy, is getting farcical.
The driving school programme on BBC- The Muslim one. Harmless entertainment or something else?
Jolly middle aged Muslim ladies learning to drive with the usual trials and worries of the test and the road.
Fair enough. But then for no apparent reason we switch to a fully veiled English girl – a convert- whose life of drugs and the rest was turned around by her embracing the one true faith. Nothing to do with driving . Everything to do with a not so subtle attempt to reinforce the message that our culture is deficient and that a better alternative is available.
Mind you on Newsnight afterwards we had Choudary making a fool of himself by way of a change of tone.
The BBC is really not sure what line to take is it?
Perhaps the BBC needs to
Forget the last line
The BBC’s phony Palestinian Body Count Narrative continues unabated, even when they have to stretch to include it in a story.
Turkey demands apology from Israel over envoy ‘slight’
It’s a very minor diplomatic row, to be sure, but since it’s a chance to show Israel in a negative light, the Beeboids leap to it. Israel apparently photographed the Turkish ambassador in an unflattering setup, Turkey demands apology, yada, yada. Nothing important. Sounds like an episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”, really.
Yes, it’s relevant to mention that Turkey’s diplomatic relations with Israel aren’t what they once were, for context. A relatively unbiased explanation would be that there are several reasons why the Turkish government has been leaning more and more towards Islamism, and this would naturally lead to less playing nice with Israel. Any recent conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians will necessarily aggravate the situation, etc. A BBC News Online editor would probably say that’s too complex, this is only a news brief so a quick summary is in order, can’t worry about glossing over details.
Of course, in reality, the BBC sees only one demon here, and as the Beeboids are wrapped up in their emotions and unable to do honest journalism, they blame last year’s invasion of Gaza as the source of all troubles with the diplomatic relationship between Israel and Turkey. It’s a very shallow take, but that’s the BBC for you.
And so having established that Israel’s invasion of Gaza was the catalyst for diplomatic decay, they can trot out their ghoulish Body Count Narrative.
Rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation, which Israel said was aimed at ending rocket fire by Hamas
As usual, there is no mention of how many of those casualties were actually Hamas fighters, so once again the audience is invited to assume that all are innocent.
This is an editorial policy at the BBC, deliberate and mendacious, with one goal in mind: to create a specific impression of the conflict. Come see the bias inherent in the system.
And, what BBC, is the nature of the TV series which is apparently popular among Turkish Muslims, and how does it represent Israelis?
The BBC’s superficial, fleeting comment is this:
“The meeting with the Turkish ambassador, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, was called over the fictional television series ‘Valley of the Wolves’, popular in Turkey.
“It depicts Israeli intelligence operatives running operations to kidnap babies and convert them to Judaism. ”
Perhaps the BBC does not think that such a depiction of Israelis is worthy of further comment.
Good point. Naturally the BBC is keen to hide all sorts of mitigating factors that would detract from the desired impression of Israel as the sole problem.
However, I must note that the BBC has done at least one stealth edit since my comment last night, one which actually mentions an actual external factor for Turkey’s continued distancing from Israel. Of course, the BBC presents it as Israel’s opinion and not as objective background reporting, which it really ought to be. So only partial credit for that one.
Further, althought News Sniffer doesn’t show it, the sneaky Beeboids did a stealth edit at the bottom, to their ghoulish Body Count. I suspect News Sniffer just missed it, as the time stamp of the “Version 0” they have is several hours after I posted my comment last night. I know I didn’t see that last sentence mentioning Israeli casualties, or I would have mentioned it.
What the vicious little junior sub-editor has done is to hide the mendacity of which I accused them by stating the Israeli body count without the usual demarcation of military and civilian casualties. They think this solves the problem of having to do so for the Palestinian casualties – which has been one of my major complaints for months. But it doesn’t. After all, the impression is still that the Israelis killed 1400 innocents, while losing less than one percent of that number. It’s still overwhelmingly “disproportionate”, which is the impression the BBC wants you to have. More Israeli civilians ought to die next time before they’re allowed to retaliate against Hamas.
So long as the BBC refuses to separate Hamas from civilian casualties, they’re being dishonest. Sadly, it’s an actual editorial policy at the BBC. I don’t give a damn that there are Jews in the Jerusalem office, or Jews anywhere else at the BBC. This is still dishonest, and deliberate.
Can someone please explain why my licence fee was used to produce the show “Muslim women drivers – An insight into the lives of Muslim women learner drivers, their instructors and families”?
A six part series!!! I browsed the first episode last night and the driving lessons were a mere sideshow, the real purpose of the programme seemed to be to put forward a pro Islam stance and ridicule Westerners as being thieving drug takers.
Is there no end to this waste of my money? What next “Catholic Dog Walkers”, “Jewish Bingo Players”, “Hindu Amateur Painters”.
Pathetic output once again and a real waste of my money.
This was made with under the aegis of “Social Cohesion”. To the BBC programmers, you’re a bigoted white, Christian, English person, maybe even with the Flag of St. George somewhere in the house, and thus need to be continually educated about cultures other than your own. Specifically, you need to be educated about Mohammedans and reminded not to panic simply because they’re Islamic.
In the BBC mindset, you’re the problem, and Mohammedans are merely waiting for racist Brits to embrace them at last, and stop making them feel like the suffering minority Mark Thompson feels they are. Your license fee was used in this instance to improve Britain and help create a truly harmonious multi-cultural society.
There will never be a programme with a similar goal but directed at Muslims, because the Beeboids aren’t intellectually capable of it.
Well, I didn’t know that it was a series. Anyway, what is of special interest about Muslim women learning to drive? Do they have to have only female instructors?
This reminds me of the BBC deciding a year or so back to devote a month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 to Pakistan. A whole month’s programmes!
I could understand it if they devoted the occasional programme to it, maybe, or if they had a practice of doing different countries, but they don’t, to my knowledge. I’ve never heard of them doing another country. So why? Are the bulk of Radio 4 listeners in the UK that interested in Pakistan?
“This reminds me of the BBC deciding a year or so back to devote a month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 to Pakistan. A whole month’s programmes!”
Really? Are you sure? I spend a fair amount of my working time in the BBC press office programme information for radio, and no such season triggers even the flicker of a memory. My working patch doesn’t usually include current affairs programmes, true, but it does include drama – and as that takes up a quarter of Woman’s Hour’s total programme time, I do tend to spot big WH seasons, especially if they’re a month long on one topic only.
Still, I’m sure you must be right, and not merely making stuff up. So I’m sure you won’t mind taking a few minutes to Google up a couple of references, will you? Thanks!
Scott, Maybe you were away on some ‘Knit Me a tofu igloo course’
or some BBC doormouse awareness seminar or something.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/pakistan/
Ok not a month but a SEASON. Funnily enough including woman’s hour.
Now you make pick holes a bit ( 2 weeks not 4 )that would probably be a bit pedantict. Maybe you should offer the poor boy an apology.
Isn’t google great?
Oops like my new word there? Pedantic
Oops changed you sex their Millie (Note to self: Lay off the whiskey a bit when going online)
Nice one, Paddy !
Cheers John.
An apology from any beeboid seems to be an increasingly rare thing.
Try HYS moderators or their complaints department and they do a disappearing act also.
Still score one for the rebel alliance against the forces of the dark side.
Scott could be Dark Helmet
Scott, Maybe you were away on some ‘Knit Me a tofu igloo course’
or some BBC doormouse awareness seminar or something.
Paddy, you are a one! 😀
Well if Scott can’t remember something, did it really happen? Such is life in Scottland.
So let me get this right:
* It wasn’t a year ago, but two
* It wasn’t a Woman’s Hour season, but a Radio 4 one including just fifteen programmes or sections of magazine programmes and some additional news features
* It wasn’t a month, but two weeks
* When Millie repeated “a whole month’s of programmes”, he thinks three features on Woman’s Hour constitutes a whole month of programmes
So basically, the only thing Millie got right was that Radio 4 was involved there somewhere. Somehow I think that it’s Millie who should be apologising. But then, he hasn’t apologised for claiming that Newsround has only one “English” presenter, so I’m not going to hold my breath.
Actually if you are being pedantic it was february 2008 which was less than 2 years ago but we wont split hairs coz that would be a bit sad wouldn’t it.
Since when would you describe a season of fifteen shows just. remember Faulty Towers was only twelve shows.
A bit picky. But obviously your lack of memory in the first instance is a bit embarrassing.
I like you Scott, you are more Ranty than me but sometimes us ranters get caught out.
As my 10 year old might say “BUSTED”
Millie Tant:
“This reminds me of the BBC deciding a year or so back to devote a month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 to Pakistan. A whole month’s programmes!”
A whole month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 would be 6 programmes a week (5 weekday and one weekend edition) for 4 weeks, which is 24 editions.
That link you posted to on the ‘Uncovering Pakistan’ season mentions 3 editions of Woman’s Hour. Hardly a whole months worth is it?
Who’s been ‘BUSTED’ exactly Paddy? 🙂
One thing I’ll say for you lefties, you stick together.
Which ever way you want to spin it it was a major commitment by Radio 4. It was ,as has been referred to above, a season and Scott has no recollection.
Defending the indefensible. First auntie, then AGW and now each other. Bunker mentality.
Loving your work 😉
Paulo:
” A whole month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 would be 6 programmes a week (5 weekday and one weekend edition) for 4 weeks, which is 24 editions.
That link you posted to on the ‘Uncovering Pakistan’ season mentions 3 editions of Woman’s Hour. Hardly a whole months worth is it?”
Who’s been ‘BUSTED’ exactly Paddy? 🙂
———————————————-
Well obviously three programmes is not a month’s worth.
Woman’s Hour at the weekend is an omnibus which repeats bits from the five weekday programmes. There is no new content in the weekend programme. So there are five “original”programmes a week content-wise and a weekend repeat of some of it. I call that 20 programmes plus the selected weekend repeats.
Anyway, I have been accused of lying and far from having been “busted” 😛 , I got the info that I had from Woman’s Hour itself and to this day I had believed that they devoted the whole of February’s Woman’s Hour to Pakistan.
I have asked a resident Beeboid for the link to the archived programmes of Woman’s Hour for February 2008 to be posted.
Let’s see if that will be forthcoming. I have my doubts.
“Since when would you describe a season of fifteen shows just. remember Faulty Towers was only twelve shows.”
It’s all relative, isn’t it? Just look at the number of programmes Radio 4 broadcasts on a single day, multiply that over two weeks, and suddenly fifteen doesn’t seem like such a big number after all…
* It wasn’t a year ago, but two
* It wasn’t a Woman’s Hour season, but a Radio 4 one including just fifteen programmes or sections of magazine programmes and some additional news features
* It wasn’t a month, but two weeks
* When Millie repeated “a whole month’s of programmes”, he thinks three features on Woman’s Hour constitutes a whole month of programmes
So basically, the only thing Millie got right was that Radio 4 was involved there somewhere. Somehow I think that it’s Millie who should be apologising. But then, he hasn’t apologised for claiming that Newsround has only one “English” presenter, so I’m not going to hold my breath.
Listen Matey, you are an idiot.
I heard it on Woman’s Hour that they were going to cover Pakistan during February. It is clear that I didn’t say whether it is last February or the one before, since I couldn’t remember exactly which – “a year or so back” – and in any case it is neither here nor there. So attempting to make a point of which year is idiotic.
The fact that it was a Radio 4 “season” doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a Woman’s Hour one. I had no reason to know that because Woman’s Hour was doing Pakistan in February, the whole of Radio 4 was.
Idiotic to try to make out that I got something “wrong”, just because Radio 4 was doing something that Woman’s Hour didn’t specifically mention.
I didn’t “repeat” the phrase you said I repeated.
Writing of me that “he thinks three features on Woman’s Hour constitutes a whole month of programmes” confirms your idiocy.
So three out of four of your asterisked claims are wrong or wrong and pointless or wrong and idiotic.
I didn’t listen to it throughout February, so I didn’t ever discover that it lasted only two weeks instead of four. By the way, would you put up a link to the archived programmes for February, if you don’t mind.
As for Newsround, four out of five of the presenters are from ethnic minorities, though what it has to do with this thread is a mystery. There you go again with one of your non-points.
So basically, almost everything you have written above is wrong or pointless empty accusation.
So you’re happy to admit that when you said “This reminds me of the BBC deciding a year or so back to devote a month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 to Pakistan. A whole month’s programmes!” you didn’t actually have a clue what you were talking about.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Now, you are just playing silly buggers and showing yourself up. I have explained but you are not interested in knowing the facts. All you want is to score some notional points.
I thought Scott was being arse of the week but now it seems we have two vying for it.
Paulo,
A year or so back. Well that could be 2 years so nothing wrong there.
‘devote a month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 to Pakistan. A whole month’s programmes’
Ok factually inaccurate but it was a season. A season for gods sake. That in itself is not insgnificant. You are being an enormous pedant.
One person gets the number of shows wrong the other denies the whole existence of the season.
Do you and Scott work in the same office at broadcasting house or something?
Are you perchance significant others?
Quote from Press Office Beeboid (Scott):
Really? Are you sure? I spend a fair amount of my working time in the BBC press office programme information for radio, and no such season triggers even the flicker of a memory. …
…
Still, I’m sure you must be right, and not merely making stuff up. So I’m sure you won’t mind taking a few minutes to Google up a couple of references, will you? Thanks!
====================================
I am sure you won’t mind apologising for calling me a liar once your brain finally clicks into the ON position and you realise your own stupidity. You should be heaved over the side for that unprovoked and unwarranted slur or at least thrown into the brig for a few days.
And seeing as you are in the Press Office of the World’s Greatest Broadcaster (though with not even a flicker of a memory) why don’t you search the programme archives and find out for yourself? Don’t tell me the World’s Greatest – or should that be Most Lavishly Publicly Funded? – depends on Google, or Google and Paddy.
Seriously, Millie, you claimed that Woman’s Hour spent “a whole month” on Pakistan, we find out it was actually three features in a two week period, and you’re calling other people liars? Bizarre.
Incidentally, when I said I spent part of my work life “in the press office programme information”, I meant ‘with my nose in’ the press releases & PI info. rather than physically working in the office. Should have been clearer about that, but hey. I’m sure you would have sent an “unprovoked and unwarranted” rant in my direction anyhow.
Beeboid Scott:
“and you’re calling other people liars? Bizarre.”
What are you talking about?
Since I haven’t called any other people liars, I can only take it that you are confused by your own calling of myself a liar. For which I await your apology.
Millie – your initial assertion, that Woman’s Hour devoted “a whole month” to Pakistan was wrong.
You’re now trying to say that of course you couldn’t POSSIBLY have known that it was only three features over a two week period. Despite having previously attempted to have a go at me for not doing my research.
Keep going, please do: it’s quite amusing watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into that hole you’re making for yourself.
PS: Re Newsround – nationality and ethnic origin are not the same thing, which is why I question you claiming that only one presenter is “English”. I agree it’s not 100% germane to this thread, but it does indicate a certain flexibility when it comes to factual assertions from your good self.
Beeboid Scott:
Millie – your initial assertion, that Woman’s Hour devoted “a whole month” to Pakistan was wrong.
You’re now trying to say that of course you couldn’t POSSIBLY have known that it was only three features over a two week period. Despite having previously attempted to have a go at me for not doing my research.
Keep going, please do: it’s quite amusing watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into that hole you’re making for yourself.
PS: Re Newsround – nationality and ethnic origin are not the same thing, which is why I question you claiming that only one presenter is “English”. I agree it’s not 100% germane to this thread, but it does indicate a certain flexibility when it comes to factual assertions from your good self.
=========================================
What are you trying to prove by stating the obvious? I am not trying to say anything, least of all what you allege. I have said plain and straight what I believed and how it came about. Facts, Beeboid Scott, facts. Do you have a problem with facts? All you have done is come along like some crazy, accusing me of making things up, demanding that I do a Google search for you (Does Beeboid occupy such a lowly berth at Beeboid House that he is not allowed to use the faciilities of the World’s Greatest etc?), building an edifice of nonsense “points” (rebutted one by one), then accusing me of calling other people liars – when anyone can read the record and see who called whom what. It’s funny that you think you have a grip of facts.
Have you found that archive yet for Feb 2008? You do know how to find it, I presume. I await the link and your apology for calling me a liar.
As for your wittering on about Newsround, you are not making sense. Nobody said nationality and ethnicity are the same thing. They are all (presumably) of British nationality but most are from various ethnic minorities and only one is from the English majority. Fact. So again, apologise for your further attempt to smear me as a liar, you poisonous fool.
Mary Ellen Synon, ‘Daily Mail’:
“The BBC smears a devout Roman Catholic European ..no surprise”
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2010/01/the-bbc.html
Assuming Prof. Mohammadi was not involved in Iran’s nuclear programme and was a supporter of the political opposition, why wouldn’t the Iranian government kill him and blame it on the West ?
Definitely one for the fearless BBC investigative journalists to pursue.
I am a bit confused with this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8455897.stm
“Bangladeshi cabbie returns cash”
While it is true that the man originates from Bangladesh, if we were to read about say a Nigerian committing a murder, the story would read “Mr. X, from Peckham”, and they would completely omit the origin of the man: you would have to read other, less biased media to find that out. So for consistency, I would firmly expect
“New York cabbie returns cash”
(and of course New York cab drivers have more cultural impact than Bangladeshi cab drivers: NY cabbies are an international icon)
Could someone explain the difference between the two?
Referring back to the Turkey/Israel spat, I wonder if the BBC have tried to explain why Turkey and Israel were such close allies before the current Islamic government of Turkey came to power ?
Very complex issues here which may be beyond the BBC’s understanding and certainly wouldn’t fit in to their narrow-minded, myopic , stereotypic “world view”.
Matthew 4:52
Spot on. Classic BBC bias.
PS How about :-
” Jewish cabbie returns cash ” ?
‘Policy Exchange’ on BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8458271.stm
Plus:
“BBC Worldwide should be privatised, says report”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/6982580/BBC-Worldwide-should-be-privatised-says-report.html
The BBC recycled a press release and Wikipedia for this one. We’ll have to wait until Jan 14th to read what ‘Policy Exchange’ really said.
From the fact that the BBC actually published this it’s safe to assume the think tank ignored embarassing questions about BBC agenda in favour of easily acceptable programming recommendations.
It’s significant how Labour and BBC avoid the words ‘white’ and ‘indigenous British’, but uses the words ‘black’ and ‘Asian’ (partly code for Muslim) such are the lib-left’s political priorities:
“Ethnic minorities ‘no longer always disadvanged”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8458298.stm
Labour regards Britain, and the BBC reports on Britain as though it is a foreign country for the British people.
From Guido ..
http://order-order.com/2010/01/14/exclusive-mcbrides-back-advising-the-bbc/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+guidofawkes+(Guy+Fawkes'+blog+of+parliamentary+plots,+rumours+and+conspiracy)&utm_content=Google+UK
It appears the BBC have thrown some work in Damian McBride’s direction ! They certainly stick together don’t they 🙂
I see on the comments on Guido’s are less than complimentary to the BBC. Where is OMTE by the way? Has he abandoned us?
We need to hear the words of a staunch BBC supporter in these dark days.
Lest we continue to suffer from bad attitudes and a failure to understand just how fortunate we are to have the BBC to think on our behalf.
I think the BBC didn’t realise what the most popular comments would be on todays HYS.
I think it’ll be pulled very soon…
Scott,
“Really? Are you sure? I spend a fair amount of my working time in the BBC press office programme information for radio, and no such season triggers even the flicker of a memory. … ”
Patronising and wrong.
Millie got the number of shows wrong fair cop.
However
1) There was a season
2) it was a significant length
3) It was about Pakistan
Details may have been blurred but the big picture was roughly the same.
You with your finger on the pulse so to speak missed this whole seaon.
A person who hangs around the office and hobnobs with the beeb movers and shakers might normally be expected to recall such a significant season. Yet you pull Millie up on aspects ofdetail.
The Pot calling the Kettle Black so to speak.
Denial is not a river in Egypt, but it is something you are familiar with.
For some it is not enough that I got the number wrong. They want to make something of it. One wants to pretend that I hadn’t a clue what I was talking about and the other wants to pretend the same thing and in addition that I am a liar and made it up. It wouldn’t do for them to accept what actually happened and that there is a straightforward explanation for it. With such an atttitude, they must encounter enormous difficulty in negotiating daily life.
The piece you quote from Beeboid Scott shows that he introduced the word “season” into this – I did not because I didn’t know they did seasons on Woman’s Hour or what length they were. If I had had some prior knowledge, I might have interpreted it that what they meant was not a whole month but a “season” to take place during February.
In any case much of what has been written serves as deflection from the BBC’s agenda in doing this “season” and the question I raised in my first post about whether Woman’s Hour does this for individual countries – which hasn’t been addressed, let alone answered in any of the Beeboid posts.
Congratulations on opening your mouth and showing your ignorance again. There was no ‘Woman’s Hour season’ on Pakistan. Radio 4 had a (relatively) small selection of items across a variety of programs covering Pakistan and three of these were from Woman’s Hour.
Can you not see how claiming that Woman’s hour had a whole month devoted to Pakistan was not just ‘getting the numbers wrong’ but actually completely inaccurate.
Carry on posting, its really too funny for words.
nasty sad man
“One wants to pretend that I hadn’t a clue what I was talking about and the other wants to pretend the same thing and in addition that I am a liar and made it up.”
Which, let’s face it, you’ve more or less admitted to.
You said something definitively – that Woman’s Hour had devoted “a whole month” to Pakistan. When I queried that, you got defensive and rude. Further investigation – including a link to the season in question supplied not by me, but by another Biased BBC commenter – showed that you were wrong on nearly every point you had asserted as fact.
Saying that you misheard a statement and got the wrong end of the stick would be a good basis for an apology. We’ve all done it in the past, let’s face it.
It is not, however, a defence for asserting as fact something which was completely wrong.
“If I had had some prior knowledge, I might have interpreted it that what they meant was not a whole month but a “season” to take place during February.”
Would it not have been better to know what you were talking about before asserting something as a fact? You’re right, prior knowledge comes into it – if you had had prior knowledge, you wouldn’t have lied about Woman’s Hour doing “a whole month” of programmes on one subject.
This from a self proclaimed insider who didnt even know there had been a pakistan season.
I’m glad your not a personal financial adviser or you might have missed the stock market crash.
Imagine it.
Contributor. “There’s been ten trillion knocked off the stock market”
Scott ” I havent heard about it and I know everything because I’m best buds with blah blah blah!”
2nd Contributor ” actually Scott your wrong the stock markets crashed see accompanying link”
Scott ” I’ve followed the link and there was only 7 trillion knocked off and therefore contributor 1 is an idiot. It doesnt matter I hadnt got a clue about the crash ,How dare she have questioned me for I am in the know blah blah blah!”
Paulo ” Scott is great. I want to have his babies Contributor one doesnt have a clue. Scott’s got his finger on the pulse. He knows George Soros and that Branson bloke and that howard from the Halifax ads. hes great.
any way your all a bunch of Daily Mail readers. So there!!”
Who’s the tit?
“Who’s the tit?”
I’d suggest the person who stated – as fact – “This reminds me of the BBC deciding a year or so back to devote a month of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4 to Pakistan. A whole month’s programmes!”
Which was presented as fact, but was completely wrong. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?
Following the BBC’s great success, in parts of Blackburn, with its six programmes on burqa wearing driver instruction, perhaps the BBC will follow it up with another TV series, again subsidied by the BBC licencepayers:
“Egypt’s soccer team: No Infidels need apply”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/egypts-soccer-team-no-infidels-need-apply.html
The Islamised UK society which the BBC is propagating in 6 TV programmes: “Muslim Driving School: Driving with the Veil”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8449262.stm
In another pre-election Labour fawning piece, BBC does not even mention the impact of nearly 13 years (and continuing) of Labour’s policy of Mass Immigration from Islamic countries on British society:
“Labour battles the BNP on class and race”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8454590.stm
Time for a new thread?
Anyhoo, and subject to the caveat that this is ‘subject to verification (not something that troubles many in the MSM before rushing to broadcast):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6988402/Michael-Parkinson-criticises-modern-chatshows.html
‘A senior BBC source said: “We’re desperate for anyone that isn’t white and male.’
Martin may, in part, be surprised, Hatty thrilled, and those who ponder the ironic realities of discriminatory policies may simply shake their heads.
Can we have a new open thread, please?